The lawyer for state Sen. Chris McDaniel announced at a press conference on Wednesday afternoon in Jackson, MS, that he has enough evidence to file for an official challenge of the election results, and will do so in the coming days.

“The million dollar question: What did we find? We found a lot,” Mitch Tyner, of Tyner Law Firm, said after he and McDaniel supporter state Sen. Michael Watson walked the press and McDaniel supporters at the press conference through how they have serious concerns with the election review process in Mississippi.

“We’ve heard it our entire lives in Mississippi,” Tyner said. “Votes are being bought. Ballot boxes are being stuffed. There are false affidavit ballots. There are invalid affidavit ballots. There are invalid absentee ballots—we’ve heard it all our lives. I’m 51 years old and it’s the first time I saw it up close and personal. It exists. We are committed to finding it and rooting it out and stopping it.”

Tyner thanked Sen. Watson for standing up against alleged voter fraud and said Watson “can do something about it in the next legislative session.”

Tyner walked those at the press conference through how the McDaniel campaign’s attorneys, especially Sen. Watson, have been arguing before various courts in the state for judges to order election officials in a variety of Mississippi’s 82 counties for orders that they open election materials up for inspection. Every time, Tyner noted, the judges have sided with Watson’s arguments and order election officials to open the materials up for McDaniel campaign review.

The campaign is asking the Mississippi Supreme Court to rule on the matter so that the poll books and other election materials can be opened up to the McDaniel campaign for no charge. “That’s the issue that we want to make sure that the Supreme Court rules on: that it doesn’t matter how much money you have, you still get to look at the poll books,” Tyner said.

Tyner walked reporters through the “categories of information we’ve been finding” next.

“There’s crossover votes, we know that,” Tyner said. “There’s illegal votes—all types of illegal votes going on, absentee problems, votes that were cast—we’re going as far as into the boxes to see if how many people signed in are the same number that were cast. You’re going to be astonished. They aren’t. It’s amazing. You’re going to see problem after problem after problem.”

Tyner then addressed how Sen. Thad Cochran’s campaign and its supporters have said there’s no evidence in public yet, so there’s nothing there. “Am I going to sit right here and try my case in the media and do a tit-for-tat with the Cochran campaign?” Tyner asked rhetorically. “‘We found this but it says that.’ I’m not going to do that. We’re going to be mature about this.”

Tyner promised that soon, when the campaign files its challenge, it will publish all the evidence for the public to see. “We’re going to put it all together in a complete package,” Tyner said. “I was really hoping we’d have it today. Monday, a week ago, I was sure we would. But I wasn’t sure we were going to run into this many problems. We’re going to get that together and at the same time we file a challenge, we’re going to give you a complete copy of it.”

Tyner also told the reporters that he’ll be providing a copy of the evidence to federal and state law enforcement officials as well. “We’re not only going to give it to you guys in the media, we’re also going to give a copy of it to the U.S. Attorney, to the Federal Election Commission, and we’re also going to give it to the Attorney General of the State of Mississippi,” Tyner said to cheers from McDaniel supporters at the press conference.

Tyner said that this is “much bigger than” just differences between Cochran and McDaniel.

“I praise Chris for not throwing in the towel,” Tyner said. “The conventional wisdom is out there. Everyone knows he was a very popular candidate and everyone knows he could have conceded and written his ticket for any office next year. But Chris McDaniel said, ‘no, I want to root out the problems. I want to integrity in this process, and if it destroys my political career so be it.’ That’s the kind of candidate we need for every elected office in Mississippi as well as inside the beltway.”

When local reporter Scott Simmons asked them if they have enough evidence to file a legal challenge of the election, Tyner replied: “Yes. There’s already enough evidence to file the challenge.”

When Simmons followed up to ask if that evidence is entirely ineligible crossover votes—Democrats who voted in the June 3 Democratic primary then in the June 24 GOP primary runoff—Tyner responded that he’s “not going to go into the specifics of everything, but crossover votes are a big part of our challenge.”

Feb. 26, 2014: An election official checks a voter's photo identification at an early voting polling site in Austin, Texas (AP Photo/Eric Gay, File)

The Supreme Court said Saturday that Texas' new voter-ID law can remain in effect for the November election, sparking mixed reaction.

In a rare weekend announcement, a majority of the high court’s justices rejected an emergency request from the Justice Department and civil rights groups to prohibit Texas from requiring voters to produce certain forms of photo ID to cast ballots. Three justices dissented.

The law was struck down by a federal judge last week, but a federal appeals court had put that ruling on hold.

The judge found that roughly 600,000 voters, many of them black or Latino, could be turned away at the polls because they lack acceptable identification. Early voting in Texas begins Monday.

"We are pleased the Supreme Court has agreed that Texas' voter ID law should remain in effect,” the state’s Attorney General’s Office said. “The state will continue to defend the voter ID law and remains confident that the district court's misguided ruling will be overturned on the merits.”

The high court’s order was unsigned, as it typically is in these situations. Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan dissented, saying they would have left the district court decision in place.

"The greatest threat to public confidence in elections in this case is the prospect of enforcing a purposefully discriminatory law, one that likely imposes an unconstitutional poll tax and risks denying the right to vote to hundreds of thousands of eligible voters," Ginsburg wrote in dissent.

The law sets out seven forms of approved ID -- a list that includes concealed handgun licenses but not college student IDs, which are accepted in other states with similar measures.

"Hundreds of thousands of eligible voters in Texas will (now) be unable to participate in November's election because Texas has erected an obstacle course designed to discourage voting,” said Sherrilyn Ifill, president and counsel for the NAACP’s Legal Defense Fund. “A federal court has found that the obstacles erected by Texas were designed to discriminate against black and Hispanic voters. This is an affront to our democracy. "

The 143-page opinion from U.S. District Judge Nelva Gonzales Ramos called the law an "unconstitutional burden on the right to vote" and the equivalent of a poll tax in finding that the Republican-led Texas Legislature purposely discriminated against minority voters in Texas.

Texas had urged the Supreme Court to let the state enforce voter ID at the polls in a court filing that took aim at the ruling by Ramos, an appointee of President Obama. Attorney General Greg Abbott, a Republican who's favored in the gubernatorial race, called Ramos' findings "preposterous" and accused the judge of ignoring evidence favorable to the state.

The defense fund, which is separate from the NAACP, presented testimony and oral arguments in the lower court trial.

“This battle isn’t yet over, said Natasha Korgaonkar, a lawyer for the group’s political arm.

Two years ago, the group and Justice Department joined other organizations in blocking the implementation of a photo-ID law in Texas.

The court had intervened in three other disputes in recent weeks over Republican-inspired restrictions on voting access. In Wisconsin, the justices blocked a voter ID law from being used in November. In North Carolina and Ohio, the justices allowed limits on same-day registration, early voting and provisional ballots to take or remain in effect.

Ginsburg said the Texas case was different from the clashes in North Carolina and Ohio because a federal judge held a full trial on the Texas election procedures and developed "an extensive record" finding the process discriminated against ballot access.

Texas has enforced its tough voter ID in elections since the Supreme Court in June 2013 effectively eliminated the heart of the Voting Rights Act, which had prevented Texas and eight other states with histories of discrimination from changing election laws without permission. Critics of the Texas measure, though, said the new ID requirement has not been used for an election for Congress and the Senate, or a high-turnout statewide election like the race for governor.

Ramos' issued her ruling on October 9. Five days later, the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in New Orleans put her decision on hold and cited a 2006 Supreme Court opinion that warned judges not to change the rules too close to Election Day.

The challengers in Texas said that the last time the Supreme Court allowed a voting law to be used in a subsequent election after it had been found to be unconstitutional was in 1982. That case from Georgia involved an at-large election system that had been in existence since 1911.

Could control of the Senate in 2014 be decided by illegal votes cast by non-citizens? Some argue that incidents of voting by non-citizens are so rare as to be inconsequential, with efforts to block fraud a screen for an agenda to prevent poor and minority voters from exercising the franchise, while others define such incidents as a threat to democracy itself. Both sides depend more heavily on anecdotes than data.

In a forthcoming article in the journal Electoral Studies, we bring real data from big social science survey datasets to bear on the question of whether, to what extent, and for whom non-citizens vote in U.S. elections. Most non-citizens do not register, let alone vote. But enough do that their participation can change the outcome of close races.

Our data comes from the Cooperative Congressional Election Study (CCES). Its large number of observations (32,800 in 2008 and 55,400 in 2010) provide sufficient samples of the non-immigrant sub-population, with 339 non-citizen respondents in 2008 and 489 in 2010. For the 2008 CCES, we also attempted to match respondents to voter files so that we could verify whether they actually voted.

How many non-citizens participate in U.S. elections? More than 14 percent of non-citizens in both the 2008 and 2010 samples indicated that they were registered to vote. Furthermore, some of these non-citizens voted. Our best guess, based upon extrapolations from the portion of the sample with a verified vote, is that 6.4 percent of non-citizens voted in 2008 and 2.2 percent of non-citizens voted in 2010.

Because non-citizens tended to favor Democrats (Obama won more than 80 percent of the votes of non-citizens in the 2008 CCES sample), we find that this participation was large enough to plausibly account for Democratic victories in a few close elections. Non-citizen votes could have given Senate Democrats the pivotal 60th vote needed to overcome filibusters in order to pass health-care reform and other Obama administration priorities in the 111th Congress. Sen. Al Franken (D-Minn.) won election in 2008 with a victory margin of 312 votes. Votes cast by just 0.65 percent of Minnesota non-citizens could account for this margin. It is also possible that non-citizen votes were responsible for Obama’s 2008 victory in North Carolina. Obama won the state by 14,177 votes, so a turnout by 5.1 percent of North Carolina’s adult non-citizens would have provided this victory margin.Advertisement

We also find that one of the favorite policies advocated by conservatives to prevent voter fraud appears strikingly ineffective. Nearly three quarters of the non-citizens who indicated they were asked to provide photo identification at the polls claimed to have subsequently voted.

An alternative approach to reducing non-citizen turnout might emphasize public information. Unlike other populations, including naturalized citizens, education is not associated with higher participation among non-citizens. In 2008, non-citizens with less than a college degree were significantly more likely to cast a validated vote, and no non-citizens with a college degree or higher cast a validated vote. This hints at a link between non-citizen voting and lack of awareness about legal barriers.

There are obvious limitations to our research, which one should take account of when interpreting the results. Although the CCES sample is large, the non-citizen portion of the sample is modest, with the attendant uncertainty associated with sampling error. We analyze only 828 self-reported non-citizens. Self-reports of citizen status might also be a source of error, although the appendix of our paper shows that the racial, geographic, and attitudinal characteristics of non-citizens (and non-citizen voters) are consistent with their self-reported status.

Another possible limitation is the matching process conducted by Catalyst to verify registration and turnout drops many non-citizen respondents who cannot be matched. Our adjusted estimate assumes the implication of a “registered” or “voted” response among those who Catalyst could not match is the same as for those whom it could. If one questions this assumption, one might focus only on those non-citizens with a reported and validated vote. This is the second line of the table.Advertisement

Finally, extrapolation to specific state-level or district-level election outcomes is fraught with substantial uncertainty. It is obviously possible that non-citizens in California are more likely to vote than non-citizens in North Carolina, or vice versa. Thus, we are much more confident that non-citizen votes mattered for the Minnesota Senate race (a turnout of little more than one-tenth of our adjusted estimate is all that would be required) than that non-citizen votes changed the outcome in North Carolina.

Our research cannot answer whether the United States should move to legalize some electoral participation by non-citizens as many other countries do, and as some U.S. states did for more than 100 years, or find policies that more effectively restrict it. But this research should move that debate a step closer to a common set of facts.

Jesse Richman is Associate Professor of Political Science and International Studies at Old Dominion University, and Director of the ODU Social Science Research Center. David Earnest is Associate Professor of Political Science and International Studies at Old Dominion University, and Associate Dean for Research & Graduate Studies in the College of Arts and Letters.*****

Finally. Here is the smoking gun we all new had to exist. Massive fraud either phony jury duty responses or massive voter fraud. This also shows just how hard it is to prove because without state issued photo IDs that can be traced how can one prove fraud??? This is exactly why we need voter IDs.

We know almost all if not all are Democrats doing this.

I like the legal argument that each fraudulent vote *cancels out * a legitimate vote as the Constitutional basis for a legal remedy to this.

To think how many elections went the way of the Crats because of this.....

*****Massive Non-Citizen Voting Uncovered in Maryland byBryan Preston

October 29, 2014 - 11:45 pmPage 1 of 2 Next -> View as Single PageShare on facebookShare on twitterShare on emailShare on pinterest_shareMore Sharing Services671Email Print Decrease Font Size Increase Font Size An election integrity watchdog group is suing the state of Maryland, alleging that it has discovered massive and ongoing fraudulent voting by non-U.S. citizens in one county. But because of the way that the non-citizens are able to cast votes in elections, the fraud is likely happening in every single county and subdivision across the state. The group believes that the illegal voting has been happening for years.

The group, Virginia Voters Alliance, says that it compared how voters in Frederick County filled out jury duty statements compared with their voting records. The group’s investigation found that thousands of people in Frederick County who stated that they are not U.S. citizens on jury duty forms went on to cast votes in elections. Either they failed to tell the truth when they were summoned for jury duty, or they cast illegal votes. Both are crimes. The same group previously found that about 40,000 people are registered to vote in both Virginia and Maryland.

It is a federal crime to cast votes if you are not legally eligible to vote. Non-citizens, whether in the country legally or not, are prohibited from voting in most local and all state and federal elections. Yet the VVA investigation found that hundreds of non-citizens have been voting in Frederick County, Maryland. One in seven Maryland residents are non-U.S. citizens.

“The lawsuit is the equivalent of the lookout spotting the iceberg ahead of the Titanic,” state Del. Pat McDonough told the Tatler. He added that the group’s investigation found a voter fraud “smoking gun.”

Maryland state law makes it easier for non-citizens, both those present legally and those in the country against the law, to vote. Maryland issues drivers licenses to legal and illegal aliens. Driver’s licenses in turn make it easier under the Motor Voter law to register to vote. Maryland also offers copious taxpayer-funded social programs to non-citizens in the state.

The group filed suit in Baltimore’s U.S. District Court on Friday. They are suing the Frederick County Board of Elections and the Maryland State Board of Elections.

Del. Pat McDonough (R-Baltimore and Harford Counties) detailed the alleged fraud in a Maryland press conference today. He is calling for a special state prosecutor because the fraud may be taking place statewide, with significant impact on Maryland elections. Maryland currently holds 10 electoral votes in presidential elections. McDonough is also proposing legislation including voter ID to close the loopholes that he says non-citizens are using to cast votes.******

That makes a pretty good bumper sticker answer to a difficult question:

I agree with Nelson Madela on Voter ID.

Voter ID is an obvious way to guarantee honest elections. Oppression would be if you found a state office somewhere, anywhere that denied or took months or years to issue ID's to blacks or some other group. Or if the IRS did that granting 501 status to conservative groups. It would be outrageous, un-American, unconstitutional, prosecutable. Right?

Lets see. I don't suppose one reason the Dems are saturating illegals in many states is to get them registered to vote is it?

October 30, 2014 10:00 AM Non-Citizens Are Voting James O’Keefe documents the problem in North Carolina, where the Senate race is close. By John Fund

John Fund Could non-citizen voting be a problem in next week’s elections, and perhaps even swing some very close elections?

A new study by two Old Dominion University professors, based on survey data from the Cooperative Congressional Election Study, indicated that 6.4 percent of all non-citizens voted illegally in the 2008 presidential election, and 2.2 percent in the 2010 midterms. Given that 80 percent of non-citizens lean Democratic, they cite Al Franken ’s 312-vote win in the 2008 Minnesota U.S. Senate race as one likely tipped by non-citizen voting. As a senator, Franken cast the 60th vote needed to make Obamacare law.

North Carolina features one of the closest Senate races in the country this year, between Democratic incumbent Kay Hagan and Republican Thom Tillis. So what guerrilla filmmaker James O’Keefe, the man who has uncovered voter irregularities in states ranging from Colorado to New Hampshire, has learned in North Carolina is disturbing. This month, North Carolina officials found at least 145 illegal aliens, still in the country thanks to the Obama administration’s Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program, registered to vote. Hundreds of other non-citizens may be on the rolls.

A voter-registration card is routinely issued without any identification check, and undocumented workers can use it for many purposes, including obtaining a driver’s license and qualifying for a job. And if a non-citizen has a voter-registration card, there are plenty of campaign operatives who will encourage him or her to vote illegally.

O’Keefe had a Brazilian-born immigrant investigator pose as someone who wanted to vote but was not a citizen. Greg Amick, the campaign manager for the Democrat running for sheriff in Mecklenburg County (Charlotte), was only too happy to help.

Greg Amick: Here’s a couple of things you can do. You do not have to have your driver’s license, but do you have any sort of identification?

Project Veritas investigator: But I do have my driver’s license.

Amick: Oh, you do. Show ’em that and you’re good.

PV: But the only problem, you know, I don’t want to vote if I’m not legal. I think that’s going to be a problem. I’m not sure.

Amick: It won’t be, it shouldn’t be an issue at all.

PV: No?

Amick: As long as you are registered to vote, you’ll be fine.

But North Carolina officials shouldn’t be “fine” with Amick, who appears to be afoul of a state law making it a felony “for any person, knowing that a person is not a citizen of the United States, to instruct or coerce that person to register to vote or to vote.”

There ought to be a law against subverting our electoral process and betraying the principles of our constitutional republic - felony treason I am thinking, punishable by capital punishment with mandatory deportation of the remains if the offender is found to be here illegally.

Alternatively, we could set aside some land for all the people who do not wish to live within the agreed framework of this country.

Yes, according to Old Dominion University Professors Jesse Richman and David Earnest, who wrote an article for The Washington Post highlighting their findings:

Most non-citizens do not register, let alone vote. But enough do that their participation can change the outcome of close races. Because non-citizens tended to favor Democrats (Obama won more than 80 percent of the votes of non-citizens in the 2008 Cooperative Congressional Election Study sample), we find that this participationwas large enough to plausibly account for Democratic victories in a few close elections.

Sen. Al Franken (D-Minn.) won election in 2008 with a victory margin of 312 votes. Votes cast by just 0.65 percent of Minnesota non-citizens could account for this margin. It is also possible that non-citizen votes were responsible for Obama’s 2008 victory in North Carolina. Obama won the state by 14,177 votes, so a turnout by 5.1 percent of North Carolina’s adult non-citizens would have provided this victory margin.

The professors acknowledge that there are “limitations” to their research and that they are “much more confident” non-citizen votes were a factor in Minnesota than they were in North Carolina. But the overall evidence points to the fact than non-citizens have had an impact on the outcome of some of our elections.

Unfortunately, President Obama seems poised to give amnesty to millions of illegal immigrants through executive order after the election. It’s hard to imagine how giving legal status to millions of people who are here illegally will not make the problem of voter fraud worse.

There are numerous reasons to be both outraged and concerned about Obama’s plan to go around Congress before year’s end, wielding his phone and pen strategy, to give amnesty.

To start, the fact he isn’t taking action until after the election shows that he is isn’t just bypassing lawmakers, but also the American people. Obama well knows the majority of Americans oppose amnesty.

Were he to take action now, voters would have the opportunity to show their opposition by voting against members of his party who are up for election.

But snubbing the Constitution and voters is just the beginning.

According to news reports, a draft proposal from U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services indicates the agency is looking for a private vendor that has the capacity to produce 30 million work permits and green cards over the next five years–and they’d like them to be ready to produce 9 million such documents in the first year alone. How much of this “preparation” is needed to fulfill whatever Obama does through an executive order on amnesty is unknown, but we can be fairly sure its part of the calculation.

Such a move is fraught with economic and security concerns. Is the president, who is so concerned about raising the minimum wage, not the least bit concerned about how a flood of low-skill workers would affect the U.S. economy and many of the very American citizens he says he wants to help move up the economic ladder? Is he willing to ignore the huge burden amnesty will place on American taxpayers?

And considering we appear to have very little control over our borders, with tens of thousands of people flooding the southern border earlier this year, and that the Obama administration has trouble even deporting criminals who are here illegally, Americans are right to be concerned about their safety and security.

No wonder Obama doesn’t want to talk about any of this prior to next week’s elections.

To build up a case of a conspiracy, first the violations on the ground have to be established, then a pattern shown, THEN the connection of the leadership to the pattern. I suspect this last point will be difficult to prove to a sufficient probablility.

In the meantime, we are still at the ground level of getting convictions on the ground game.

"...add up the total number of votes cast for all Democratic candidates and Republican candidates in the 2010, 2012 and 2014 elections ... [and eliminate the double count of special elections] the margin shrinks to 2.1 points."

Interestingly, the proposal to eliminate the Senate, even by constitutional amendment, is specifically prohibited by Article V of the constitution. "...no state, without its consent, shall be deprived of its equal suffrage in the Senate."